CITATION: Groshaus v. Farooque, 2016 ONSC 1933
COURT FILE NOS.: CV-12-458420; CV-13-495528; and CV-14-504828
DATE: 20160318
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
JAVIER GROSHAUS and ALICIA LEVICH
Plaintiffs
– and –
BAYEZID FAROOQUE, TRISHA FAROOQUE, CHIRAGH AJWANI, SWATI TEKWANI, PAUL HARRINGTON, GEORGE VIOLANTE, VOLODYMR MARCHUK (also known as VLAD), EDGEWATER GROUP INC., EDGEWATER GROUP, STAR LAUNCH CORPORATION, MIDAN SOFTWARE CORPORATION, DOE 1 and DOE 2
Defendants
Self-represented and acting in person
Paul Robson, for the Defendants Edgewater Group Inc., Edgewater Group, Swati Tekwani, Bayezid Farooque, Trisha Farooque and Chragh Ajwani
-and-
VOLODYMYR MARCHUK
Defendant
-and-
JOSEPH FIROE
Defendant
Self-represented and acting in person
Robyrt Regan, acting for defendant, Joseph Fiore
ENDORSEMENT
DIAMOND J.:
[1] On January 26, 2016 I released a second case conference endorsement since being appointed the judge to case manage these proceedings. In that endorsement, I ordered Mr. Groshaus to prepare and serve a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim on or before February 29, 2016, with the Defendants having until March 23, 2016 to either (a) deliver their Statement(s) of Defence to the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, or (b) notify Mr. Groshaus and all other parties of their intention to move for relief under either Rules 21 or 25 arising from the contents of the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.
[2] Mr. Groshaus failed to deliver his Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim by the said deadline. He is and remains in breach of my Order. As a result, the Defendants sought to schedule a motion before me for an Order striking out all of the Statements of Claim in these proceedings, or in the alternative motions for summary judgment.
[3] I advised all parties that a further in-person case conference was needed to address any fallout of Mr. Groshaus being in breach of my Order. In response, Mr. Groshaus delivered correspondence to the Defendants which stated, inter alia:
“Having a new case conference will result in unnecessary cost and waste of time.
It can be avoided.
Please consent to amend the time table, and consent to an order for extension of time, so that I am given leave to amend the pleadings and then serve them until March 19, and the time table for the defendants to respond as previously ordered previously will be extended to April 26.
The likely scenario is that you will arrive to case conference after you had bees already been served with my amended pleading, and will not be able to explain to His Honour with a straight face why you were not willing to accept the extension of time I requested, and why there was need for a further attendance (sic).”
[4] No explanation was provided as to why the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim was not delivered by February 29, 2016 other than Mr. Groshaus was “still working on it”. His response to my request for a case conference was somewhat presumptuous, and seemed to completely ignore the fact that he was (and still remains) in breach of my Order.
[5] Further scheduling attempts between the parties resulted in an agreement that the in-person case conference proceed before me on April 15, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. On March 17, 2016 at 8:13 a.m., my assistant delivered an email to all parties confirming the date and time of the case conference. At 1:05 p.m. that day, Mr. Groshaus sent an email to all parties advising that he was “just informed that morning” that he was required to be in Small Claims Court to address another matter on April 15, 2016.
[6] I attempted to have the case conference proceed later in the day on April 15, 2016, but counsel for the Edgewater Defendants was already booked to argue another Superior Court of Justice matter which he rescheduled to commence at 11:00 a.m. in order to attend the in-person case conference before me at 9:00 a.m.
[7] These proceedings have already encountered significant delay. As held by my colleague Justice Myers in Konstan v Berkovits 2015 ONSC 6955, the purpose of the case management process is to resolve proceedings as efficiently, affordably, and proportionately as the interests of justice allow,
[8] The in-person case conference will proceed before me as originally scheduled on April 15, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. (courtroom to be determined). If. Mr. Groshaus needs to have an unrelated Small Claims Court matter adjourned, he is now armed with this endorsement as these proceedings should take priority.
[9] Depending upon whether Mr. Groshaus takes any interim steps to try and cure his breach of my Order, I will entertain the Defendants’ requests to schedule their contemplated motions when the parties attend before me at the in-person case conference.
Diamond J.
Released: March 18, 2016
CITATION: Groshaus v. Farooque, 2016 ONSC 1933
COURT FILE NOS.: CV-12-458420; CV-13-495528; and CV-14-504828
DATE: 20160318
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
JAVIER GROSHAUS and ALICIA LEVICH
Plaintiffs
– and –
BAYEZID FAROOQUE, TRISHA FAROOQUE, CHIRAGH AJWANI, SWATI TEKWANI, PAUL HARRINGTON, GEORGE VIOLANTE, VOLODYMR MARCHUK (also known as VLAD), EDGEWATER GROUP INC., EDGEWATER GROUP, STAR LAUNCH CORPORATION, MIDAN SOFTWARE CORPORATION, DOE 1 and DOE 2
Defendants
-and-
VOLODYMYR MARCHUK
Defendant
-and-
JOSEPH FIORE
Defendant
ENDORSEMENT
Diamond J.
Released: March 18, 2016